“Labour has to adapt itself to be in touch always with ordinary people to avoid becoming small cliques of isolated, doctrine-ridden fanatics, out of touch with the main stream of social life in our time”.

Who said that? Phil Goff perhaps, Shearer or Cunliffe, Andrew Little maybe? No, but the party they led at various times over the past seven years could have benefited from the advice. The quote is actually from Hugh Gaitskell, British Labour party leader in 1955 – 1963. Not a household name in New Zealand, but a man considered by many political historians as a formidable leader who tried, but ultimately failed, to modernise the British Labour party at a time when they sorely needed to adapt to the changing world. Labour paid the price by losing the 1959 election; an election many believed they should have won.

Let’s be clear about one thing: politics is about winning. There is no such thing as a ‘glorious defeat’, leaders who lose are not, as some may believe, ‘martyrs to the cause’, and ‘coming second but maintaining our principles’ is a ludicrous proposition.

Opposition is a complete waste of time as the opportunity to achieve anything meaningful simply does not exist, while the winners get to implement a political, social and fiscal agenda that is usually a million miles away from the one we would have rolled out.

In fact the week after I won Napier (the only seat won from the Nats in 2014), a friend of mine was speaking to a group of Labour supporters in Auckland; my name came up and my friend said ‘wasn’t it great Stuart won Napier back for Labour’, to which the Labour supporters replied: ‘no its dreadful. Stuart winning means that Maryan Street doesn’t make it back’. My friend was incredulous: so winning is now a sin in Labour. I would like to believe that such thinking is in the minority.

Everything Labour does from now until Election Day 2017 must contribute towards a Labour victory. For every strategic and operational initiative, the question needs to be asked “is this contributing towards a win in 2017?” If it doesn’t then drop it, don’t say it and keep clear of it.

Sound logical? Perhaps, but it is something the centre-left doesn’t do well. Finally the Labour caucus is united behind the leader and I can tell you that the fractious factions that used to exist no longer do. Not even behind closed doors. You will not see the infighting and bitching that had a bad habit of popping up in the headlines and eroded political credibility – and electability – over the past few years.

My experience is that our supporters, while just as passionate, are not so disciplined. We love to hate Whale Oil and yet we give him strength, purpose, relevance and breathe life into every pore of his existence time and time again by publicly throwing metaphorical mud at those with whom we are supposed to have a political affinity.

Labour once had a blog for MPs called Red Alert, and the rumour around at the time was that Cameron Slater wanted this closed down. Then I found out the opposite was true: it gave him some of his best material due to the occasional ill-disciplined MP.

Our supporters have the same impact when they squabble, bitch and back-stab on so-called ‘left-friendly’ sites like The Standard (a dreadful 21st century bastardisation of a once proud Labour broadsheet). Criticising your favourite Labour MP is not the route to victory, no matter what you think of their philosophies, hair or politics.

If you feel so aggrieved by something an MP has said, written or done, then email them personally and you are more likely to get a response and, just perhaps, an explanation. But ill-disciplined rants typed from an anonymous keyboard will only provide Mr Slater and Mr Farrar with a wealth of information and powerful ammunition to fire back with twice the impact.

If you want to change the government, then get behind the cause and become an advocate for the lines the leader is leading with, because there is a reason why we have taken the stance we have. 95% of the time it’s because it’s what we believe is right; but occasionally, the politics of political pragmatism must rule. That’s how you win, and that’s why we are here.

On the last day of each month TDB will ask a range of progressive voices in NZ to write a guest blog on what they think ‘the most pressing issue in NZ right now’ is. This month our guest progressives are, Labour Party MP and Marriage Equality champion Louisa Wall; Unionist and human rights activist Tali Williams; and regional champion for the Labour Party, Stuart Nash.

The first elected position I ever stood for was as a member of a team seeking to win the five trustee positions on the Auckland Energy Community Trust (AECT). The AECT is the trust that owns 75.1% of Vector Energy shares on behalf of the people of Auckland. At the time, however, it still owned 100% of the shares.

The team’s main aim was to prevent the right-wing block, led by former National Party President John Collinge, from selling 24.9% of the shares in Vector. In the end Collinge’s mob gained a majority of seats on the AECT and proceeded to sell shares. Once the sale was completed, Collinge, as the Trust’s chairperson, promised this would be the last shares the Trust ever sold.

Personally, I could never understand why anyone would want to sell off a portion of an exceptionally well-run virtual monopoly that paid a very healthy dividend to the people of Auckland.

Move forward to 2014, and John Collinge is at it once again. Collinge, backed by another former National party president Michelle Boag, and helped by Auckland EMA CEO Kim Campbell, is trying to gather support for a scheme that would steal the shares off the people of Auckland for good.

Their miserable plan, as I have been led to believe, involves pressuring the National government to introduce legislation that would allow the shares, worth around $2.1b, to be nationalised, and then gifted back to the Auckland City Council for them to sell – to the people of Auckland and overseas buyers.

Let’s put this into perspective. This year the AECT returned a $335 dividend to all shareholders (75.1% of whom are the people of Auckland). This is a most welcome bonus to many who are currently struggling with the extremely high costs of living in Auckland.

Vector is an incredibly progressive and innovative company and so this dividend is only going to grow. Why sell it? This is about ideology – and a massive disconnect by some wealthy individuals who simply have absolutely no idea at all how important $335 is to a huge number of Auckland families.

I think we have highlighted this potential issue in time so that Collinge, Boag, Campbell and co just look misery and miserable, but the fact that National Energy Minister Simon Bridges refused to comment on the matter suggests that it might have had some legs if the nasties had been a little smarter in their strategic execution; the fact that the right has handled this so ineptly is a blessing for all Aucklanders, but expect this type of behaviour to continue as the Nats seek to get their hands on high performing, publicly owned assets.

Keeping Vector in the hands of good hardworking Aucklanders is very definitely something worth fighting for. I will keep you updated if I hear anything more.

]]>https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2014/12/21/fighting-to-keep-vector-in-public-hands/feed/28Rebuilding our prisons and making them accountable to our communityhttps://thedailyblog.co.nz/2014/05/18/rebuilding-our-prisons-and-making-them-accountable-to-our-community/
https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2014/05/18/rebuilding-our-prisons-and-making-them-accountable-to-our-community/#commentsSat, 17 May 2014 20:46:17 +0000http://thedailyblog.co.nz/?p=46659

Bill English has called our prison system a ‘moral and fiscal failure’ and yet has done little to improve the situation. In fact, Corrections lost $100m from its vote in Bill’s latest budget.

I believe that Corrections is one area where we can make a real difference to our communities, save lives (literally and figuratively) and save substantial amounts of money.

A snap-shot of the number of people in prison simply doesn’t tell the story. According to corrections, there are around 6,700 sentenced inmates currently in prison. What this figure doesn’t tell is that approximately 20,000 NZers spend time inside every year, but nearly 80% of those are there for six months or less.

First the rationale for complete reform based on the statistics:

$12.5b – the [2010] cost of crime

$5b – is incurred by the taxpayer in court, police, prison costs and crime-related health and ACC costs. The remainder is what it costs the victims.

$60b – estimated cost of crime from 2010 to 2015

$25b – cost to the taxpayer.

100,000 – number of court appearances every year

80% of all crime occurs under the influence of alcohol and/or other drugs – or is committed to feed a drug habit

6,700 – current number of inmates in prison

20,000 – number of people who spend time inside per year

80-90% of prisoners have alcohol and drug problems

$6.0m spent on new uniforms for prison officers in 2011.

$3.4m on alcohol and drug programmes in prison

5% of prisoners are able to access substance abuse treatment in prison.

50% of this 5% are evicted before completing the treatment programme.

90% of prisoners are estimated to have problems with basic literacy.

1.5% [135] – of prisoners who completed the classroom-based literacy and numeracy classes in prison in 2010.

30,000 people convicted of drink driving every year

10,000 of these are repeat offenders

20,000 met the criteria for a drinking problem

1,500 are ordered to attend an alcohol assessment; let alone any treatment

Since 2002, our prison population has doubled and our rate of incarceration has gone from 119/100,000 to 203/100,000 people. Expected to be 235/100,000 by 2018

43% of all prisoners re-offend within a year of release

65% of all prisoners under 20 reoffend within a year of release

25% of all prisoners are sent back to prison within 12 months of release

50% of all prisoners will be back in prison within 5 years of release

70% of prisoners under 20 will be back in prison within 5 years of release

28 beds – the number of beds in the 2 half way houses in NZ

<1% of sentenced inmates are released into half way houses or supervised accommodation per ann

>60% of federal prisoners in Canada are released into half-way houses.

There has to be a better way than simply locking people up, letting them rot for a few months or a couple of years, and then releasing them back into the same environment, from which they came, still damaged, and expecting them to cope. The stats show they are not coping; nor is society – and we are all losing.

There is no doubt that prisons should be places of incarceration but they should also be places of rehabilitation. Then when a prisoner is released, we need to put systems in place to maximise the chances of successful integration back into the community.

Society is judged on how it treats its most vulnerable. Of course, this includes victims of crime, but also must include providing second chances to those who have been victims of sorts themselves throughout their lives.

So instead of slashing the Corrections budget, this is what I would do:

Budget appropriations – Corrections

Set up a Sentencing Advisory Council to develop consistent sentencing policy and promote planned, rather than ad hoc, decision-making.

$150m over 3 years for the development and running of community-based drug treatment programmes. Estimated benefit gained is between $1.2b and 2.4b over three years; mainly in reduced costs of crime.

$150m over 3 years for 30 half way houses designed to accommodate released prisoners.

$200m per year to implement the process of therapeutic jurisprudence by the way of drug courts. These courts have been proven to be hugely effective at reducing reoffending because clinician involved in the offenders treatment come to court to help the judge monitor progress

]]>https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2014/05/18/rebuilding-our-prisons-and-making-them-accountable-to-our-community/feed/24How Labour make the monetary announcement a game changerhttps://thedailyblog.co.nz/2014/05/07/how-labour-make-the-monetary-announcement-a-game-changer/
https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2014/05/07/how-labour-make-the-monetary-announcement-a-game-changer/#commentsTue, 06 May 2014 18:39:00 +0000http://thedailyblog.co.nz/?p=46057
I read Chris Trotter’s review on this site of Labour’s monetary policy announcement last week, and completely agree with the content and sentiment. If you haven’t seen it, it’s well worth a look.

I also believe that the vision and supporting policies put forward by Finance Spokesperson Parker is the type of innovative approach needed to deal with the issues of the day. The problem is that the vast majority of those who decide elections have no idea what a ‘fiscal deficit’ is or what ‘monetary policy’ does.

I canvassed work colleagues (all educated with mortgages) and asked them to define both of these terms: none could, however, when I asked if they were concerned about their mortgage rates or pissed off with the amount of money the big Australian banks made out of Kiwi’s paying over-the-top interest, they absolutely knew where I was coming from.

This is where Labour needs to be clever in order to deliver the sucker punch. It’s great to come out with innovative policies that will genuinely make a difference to a large number of good hard working kiwi families, however, if the messages are not delivered on a number of levels, then great ideas are potentially doomed to mediocrity at best or history at worst.

Labour’s forestry policy, for example, was extremely good and could make a big difference to the economic landscape of certain regions across NZ, however, the forestry policy wasn’t about forestry per se, but rather about regional jobs through increasing manufacturing capacity and adding value to a raw commodity.

It cut to the heart of what is wrong with the ‘market knows best’ approach that this government has pursued. The market has failed the regions to a large extent, and Labour has a plan to bring back sustainable, well-paid jobs with companies in industries that should find NZ an attractive place to invest but, for a number of reasons, haven’t.

Talking about ‘forestry’ immediately shuts out the vast majority who perceive this to have no relevance to their particular situation. Talking about creating jobs in the regions, of which forestry has an important role to play, however, captures the eye. It’s the same with monetary policy.

If smart, Labour can take advantage of the opportunity it now has to own the narrative about having a plan for the future where lower interest rates, saving for our retirement, limiting the profit of the big Australian banks and looking after good hard working Kiwis are important themes. But it needs to get the messaging right.

My work colleagues knew that Labour had made an announcement, and they had the impression that it was well received. But they didn’t really know what it was. Most interesting.

So now, the announcement wasn’t about monetary policy or reducing the fiscal deficit; nor was it really about NZ ‘paying its way’ (‘what does that mean?’ I hear a number ask). On the doorstep, in the pubs and clubs around the regions and at the coal face of electoral politics, Parker’s announcement has to be about:

-reducing the interest you pay on your mortgage
-creating jobs by making sure our companies are profitable on the world stage
-ensuring that the big Aussie-owned banks don’t continue to rip the guts out of the pay packet of those who are struggling with rising interest rates.
-Making sure that all kiwis have enough money to retire with dignity and enjoy their twilight years.

For the vast majority of those who will decide this year’s election; that’s what Parker’s policy announcement needs to be about.

‘The first 100 days’, an expression coined by President Roosevelt in 1933, is generally used to describe the successes and accomplishments of a government at the time when their power is greatest.

During the 2008 election campaign, John Key issued a document that promised to bring in 27 new policies in the first 100 days in order to provide ‘confidence that we had a plan and that we would implement it with urgency’. His roadmap was designed to help NZ ride out the financial crisis. The incoming Key Govt did implement their 27 new policies, but while rather innocuous, they set the scene for tax cuts for the wealthy, increases in GST for all and a raft of other measures that benefited the few and disadvantaged many.

Now, finally, in the spot light is another insidious crisis that the policies of this Key government has amplified and that needs to be addressed with the same vigour and energy as any financial malaise: that of inequality.

We now live in a country where 10% of the population own 50% of the wealth and where the top 1% own 3 x as much wealth as the bottom 50%. In fact, by many measures, we now have one of the most unequal societies in the developed world. This is a disgrace that needs to be remedied. In a country like New Zealand we don’t have to chose between fiscal responsibility and social accountability: we can have both.

This is why I would argue that the first 100 days are extremely important to any Labour-led government because the country is at a philosophical crossroads where if changes aren’t made in urgency, the status quo is in danger of becoming the norm as peoples expectations adjust to acknowledge the situation where inequality is ‘acceptable and inevitable’. The Minister of Finance already has.

So what should a Labour-led government promise to do within this timeframe? Keeping in mind that 100 days after the election will take the country up until Christmas.

Whatever Labour does up until election day, it has to be bold in order to capture the imagination of the electorate in a way that gets them out to vote. I am not talking about political expediency, but rather implementing a social democratic agenda that will benefit a significant proportion of the population, while no doubt, raising the ire of a significantly smaller percentage: and unapologetically so.!

There are three key themes that every new policy must at least meet one in order to tackle the issues around inequality:

money in the back pocket of good hard-working kiwi men and women

alleviate the scourge that is child poverty

create sustainable, well-paid jobs.

If a policy doesn’t tick at least one of these, then put it in the second draw for implementation during the 2nd or 3rd 100 days.

So below are some ideas; not exhaustive, but simply a few that immediately come to mind:

money in the back pocket of good hard-working NZers.

Immediately legislate to increase minimum wage to at least $16/hour with a promise to review this after 6 months.

Immediately implement the living wage for all government employees and contractors.

Overhaul monetary policy settings in a way that allows the Governor of the Reserve Bank to manage settings for more than just inflation and provides him with a wider range of tools than just the OCR.

Announce, set up and drive forward a Tax Commission with a mandate to undertake a complete overhaul of the NZ tax system without the constraints of the last one (where a whole raft of measures, including a capital gains, were off the table). Promise that this overhaul will ensure that companies and individuals currently ripping off, avoiding and evading the present system will be held to account, and everyone will be required to ‘pay their fair share’. I would love to promise to implement a capital gains tax within the first 100 days, however, I don’t believe that a CGT can be comprehensively designed, let alone legislated in without a much wider overhaul of the whole tax system, and this simply can’t be done in the first 100 days (but must be done in the first 365) – a separate post on my ideas around recommended changes to the tax system will come later.

Legislate for compulsory superannuation with a graduated plan over the next 12 years that takes employer and employee payments to the same level as the Australian plan

Implement the Power policy and ensure that the first power bills are lower than the last under a National government

Address child poverty

Take Dr Russell Will’s Child Poverty report with its 78 recommendations and implement the ‘first step’ and the ‘Initial priorities for immediate attention at relatively low cost’, while also putting in place a plan with a defined timeline to implement the ‘Initial priorities over the longer term’.

Use the rest of the report’s recommendations as the blueprint for a series of policies that will be implemented over the course of the first two terms of a Labour-led government.

Implement policies that will create 50,000 new jobs within 300 days. For example

Ensure that the Kiwibuild policy (10,000 new homes a year) is up and running and that anyone under contract to build these houses is compelled to take on apprentices (including all sub-contractors)

Joint venture with major infrastructure companies on a massive road building and upgrade system across the country (roads cost about 3 to 4 x the cost to build in NZ than they do in, for example, Australia). In fact, I would instigate a Ministry of Works with an operational mandate to drive down the cost of infrastructure builds in NZ. If this means building roads themselves, then so be it.!

Start the forestry planting programme and ensure that at least one significant wood processing company is signed up to build a major value-adding plant in regional NZ.

Recapitalise Kiwibank to the tune of at least $2b specifically for business lending at the rate of inflation to companies that are gearing up for expansion. And the government’s investment will be actively managed through the provision of competencies that many companies don’t have the ability to access (international trade development and market development managers etc etc).

Rebuild NZ Trade and Enterprise from the ground up and reorient the mandate to one of active international market development and innovation rather than one of simply support.

Labour needs to be unapologetically… Labour… in its policy settings and election manifesto. There will be a financial cost to any innovative programme, however, there will also be increase in govt revenue. This doesn’t mean being reckless with taxpayers money, but prudent on one hand and visionary in a way that takes people along on the other.

My interactions on the doorstep so far tell me that voters are looking for the type of leadership that Labour has provided in the past, and a passion, vision and commitment that Labour will take into the future.

Last term I was Labour’s Revenue and Forestry spokesman. I loved both portfolios because I truly believed that by manipulating the tax system for good, the government can significantly improve lives, change investment patterns, and promote economic growth, innovation and market engagement; and a visionary forestry policy could take a totally underutilized industry predominantly focused on commodity exports and create jobs, wealth and regional development.

I wrote a number of discussion documents and draft policy papers on a revision of the tax system and a rejuvenation of the forest industry. The papers contained ideas that were evidence-based with quantified benefits that would, I believed, take NZ from a mediocre economy to a world-leading society that valued workers’ labour, increased equity, created jobs, changed investment settings and reestablished us at the forefront of innovation and excellence.

The NZ economy is too small to allow markets, often controlled by overseas interests, to operate in isolation and self-regulation. I have argued a number of times that in a country the size of NZ’s the government has a very important role to play in driving sustainable economic growth and creating wealth.

In fact, I go further and believe that the government actually has a responsibility to constantly look at economic – and industry – settings and intervene when, for example, those in the workforce are treated unfairly, when investors and markets are being deliberately or negligently misled or manipulated, or when scarce resources are being exploited or suboptimised.

It is, therefore, the philosophical mandate and governance role of any social democratic government to ensure the negative social effects of economic growth are mitigated through sound policy, justifiable regulation and wise legislation.

As the global demand for goods and services increases, so does the competition to provide these goods and services. Not only companies, but now countries are striving to determine their competitive advantages and leverage these, in partnership with the private, and when applicable public, sector, to create sustainable wealth for their citizens and their citizens’ organisations.

Optimising international competitive advantage can manifest itself in a number of ways, but fundamentally through increased public and private partnerships in the area of economic and trade development and access to competitively priced capital. This is especially necessary and relevant in a country like New Zealand where 97% of companies employ less than 19 people, which is geographically (and culturally) isolated from key markets, and whose cost of capital is amongst the highest in the developed world.

This is what the Labour party’s forestry policy is about: using the tax system to provide incentives for those who share the vision of a country where innovation is encouraged – and rewarded; leveraging government procurement to ensure innovative solutions are commercialized and rewarded; offering the opportunity to our R&D sector to be the best they possibly can be, and using the government’s ability to fund development in a way that improves economic certainty. It’s also about understanding where our country’s competitive advantages lie and leveraging these to create domestic and international wealth.

National has forgotten about the forest industry. It barely rates a mention in any literature, is the poor cousin to farming at the Ministry of Primary Industries, and a lack of any direction has seem the commodity focus take over from a real value-add strategy.

This is a shame to those who understand just how great we could be if only we were given a little support. National really can’t see the wood for the trees; whereas Labour has seen the processing plant full of workers at the end of road in the middle of the forest in the heart of provincial and regional NZ. Thank goodness someone has their eyes open.

Remember Novapay? National Cabinet Minister Craig Foss won’t ever forget it because this debacle was the beginning of the end of his political career. He handled the situation so badly that the Prime Minister took the responsibility for navigating a solution away from him and gave the task of PRing the issue to Steven Joyce. Joyce ended up convincing the majority of the public that all was okay, and Foss disappeared into oblivion.

Well, not quite. He retained the commerce portfolio. In the last major cabinet reshuffle, when Wilkinson and Heatley lost their jobs, the rumour doing the rounds was that Foss’s neck was also on the block. He somehow survived; and the same source tells me it was by the skin of his teeth due to a rather uncharacteristic sense of loyalty displayed by Key.

Surely with the latest round of incompetence displayed by the Minister of Commerce, Foss’s days as a cabinet minister are numbered. What has he done wrong? Well, simply proven that he hasn’t a political instinct in his body. This week Shane Jones came out firing in a way that only Jonesy can. He used parliamentary privilege to launch a stinging attack against Progressive Enterprises.

He knew exactly what he was doing, and the strategy is perfect. What it does is start a process that begins to flush out the truth: a truth that refused to be told by anyone directly affected, but that impacted upon the majority of New Zealanders. Virtually no one else could have done what Jonesy did, and certainly not without the legal immunity provided by parliamentary privilege.

He struck a chord that resonated with the media, the public, and almost everyone else except the Minister of Commerce. Alas Hon Mr Foss came out and said that it was nothing to do with him and that the Commerce Commission could investigate.

Of course technically Foss is right, but this is politics; this is election year; and this is quickly turning into a pretty big issue. People expect the type of leadership Jones showed, and that Key prides himself on delivering. Kiwis expect their political leaders to stand up for them; especially against big business – and absolutely against big Australian businesses that are ripping them off. And Foss failed totally. Utterly. In fact he couldn’t have misjudged the situation much worse than he did. The next thing we know Key himself is fronting the issue and I doubt we will hear anything more from the Minister of Commerce on this.

This also comes back to Labour’s House strategy. Key, English and Joyce are all good performers in the Chamber during question time. Very competent and rarely bettered. Ministers like Foss, Guy, Tremain are not good performers at all; characterized by an inability to think quickly on their feet in the face of sustained opposition attack. While the vast majority of New Zealanders don’t watch parliamentary TV, or give a damn about question time, the media does. But more importantly, ministers own colleagues are always there; critiquing, criticizing – and waiting.

House performance is critical to any Minister’s progress because this is where he or she is judged by a jury of his/her peers. It’s where weak ministers are exposed and, at the hands of a master, destroyed. Lockwood Smith got rid of Philip Field through relentless questioning day after day. Benson Pope cracked; Muldoon was the master assassin because, apparently, he took no prisoners, and if a man was down, he would take a ruthless delight in putting the boot in and kicking until the last little bit of shit had been expelled from the rotting political corpse.

Foss is now the weakest link in Key’s cabinet. He is damaged goods and any concerns Key must have had have now been confirmed. To be honest, with Chris Tremain gone in Napier, I am surprised that Foss decided to stay on in Tukituki, as Chris really was the name, the brand and the Hawkes Bay workhorse – and a thoroughly decent chap to match; Foss just rode the coat tails. In fact, when there was a massive rain event in Foss’ electorate that caused huge slips, Foss decided to continue on an overseas trip while Chris organized clean-up crews to go into Foss’ electorate and sort the situation out.

Foss may survive in cabinet until the next election, but expect Labour’s attack dogs to go for the jugular now that they smell blood and fear. Politics is a brutal game and Foss just got totally mauled by a combination of Jones’ competence, and a complete lack of his own. The best result for Foss this year: National lose and he doesn’t have to explain why he’s not in cabinet. Lets hope.

Politics is about winning. Nothing else. MPs can philosophise, criticise, pontificate, and machinate as much as they want in opposition and it doesn’t count for a thing.

Great minds like Parker, Cunliffe, King, Jones and Robertson have pretty much wasted nearly six years in a political vacuum unable to do a thing about the way this government has reshaped the social and economic environment.

State assets have been sold, inequality has risen, child poverty has been swept under the carpet and pretty much ignored while Wanganui Collegiate has been bailed out, tax cuts for the wealthy paid for through an increase in GST for all, workers have been stripped of their fundamental rights, the education system has been turned on its head to the detriment of the majority – and there is nothing Labour can do about any of it. Without victory this year, Labour will remain impotent for another three years at least.

So how to win? First of all David Cunliffe has to be allowed to follow his well-tuned political instincts that in the space of 6 months took him from banished backbencher to delivering the Leader’s speech at Labour’s annual conference.

Make no mistake; David Cunliffe is a very intelligent and politically savvy man. He knows he has to deliver come election time, as this may well be the one chance he gets. He also knows the enrolled non-vote hasn’t dropped below 500,000 since 1999 – and this includes 2005 when then-Party President Mike Williams ran a concerted ENV turnout strategy, and Don Brash promised a right wing agenda of the like not seen in this country for a generation.

Engaging with the ENV must be a priority, but it won’t alone turn the 2011 defeat into a 2014 victory. So while this will be one part of the campaign strategy, there has to be more. Labour must prove it is capable of governing; that it can provide a viable alternative which can deliver in a way the Nats can’t.

Conventional wisdom says parties don’t win elections; governments lose them. I don’t buy this. A poor opposition will never beat an average government, but an inspired and inspiring opposition can beat an average performing governing coalition. However, in a rising economy, with an experienced Prime Minister who I believe is the only politician who truly understands the power of PR and uses it better than any MP or PM I can recall, this will be difficult; but not impossible.

I expect a State of the Nation speech from Cunliffe which redefines the Labour message and brand; and one that offers solutions to the burning issues of inequality, child poverty, and jobs. A speech communicating a vision that can be built on over the coming months.

Note I have said Labour brand. I personally don’t give a damn about any other party’s message, policies or political posturing because I am not representing that party or their aspirations on the doorstep or the soapbox when I am campaigning. I know, you know, and the voters know that in an MMP world a major party cannot govern alone; that coalition partners are vital to forming a government. At this point in time that is not my concern. Of course, when appropriate, I will seek to differentiate Labour from this government, but I will also be working incredibly hard to get the Labour message out there, and I will be offering solutions and alternatives.

If asked, I will also inform people of the political realities of coalition agreements: the most important of which is the economic agenda of the majority party is the one that will be implemented. Ideas from coalition partners are, of course, considered, and if they fit into the wider philosophical framework of the majority party, they will be adopted, but if they don’t, then they won’t. David Parker (one of the brightest, well-read and politically astute politicians I have had the pleasure of working with) will be the Finance Minister if Labour forms a government.

Labour can lead the 2014 Government and David Cunliffe can be the Prime Minister, but we should be under no illusions at the enormity of the task. The first step along the journey to the 9th floor will be taken on Monday. Expect Cunliffe to stride out with confidence.

]]>https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2014/01/24/politics-and-winning/feed/23It’s not what you say, but what they hearhttps://thedailyblog.co.nz/2014/01/10/its-not-what-you-say-but-what-they-hear/
https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2014/01/10/its-not-what-you-say-but-what-they-hear/#commentsThu, 09 Jan 2014 17:24:50 +0000http://thedailyblog.co.nz/?p=39105

It isn’t easy being Green

The American pollster and political commentator Frank Luntz wrote a book called “Its not what you say, but what they hear”. It’s a fantastic book about the use of language in both business and politics and recommended reading for anyone interested in the art of successfully crafting a message.

One of the biggest challenges for Labour this year is to get its language right. A good start would be to quickly change the way in which the media talks about the scenarios re the next government.

We always hear about the Labour-Green coalition v the National government. I cannot remember if this was coined by the National party and adopted by the media or vice versa, but however it came about, it’s damaging to Labour’s brand. Labour has to start talking about ‘the next Labour-led government’ and get right away from talk of a Labour-Green coalition. There are three reasons for this:

1. it is not a certainty that a Labour led government would be in coalition with the Greens. While any Labour-led government would certainly need the Greens support on supply-and-confidence, the nature of politics means that Labour may end up entering into a coalition with NZ First at the expense of the Greens. There is, of course, a very recent precedent for this. If the Greens did opt to form a coalition with the Nats (most unlikely but not inconceivable as Russell Norman and Met Turei don’t have the philosophical or political courage of their convictions that Rod Donald and Jeanette Fitzsimons had) then the likelihood of their long-term survival as a party is minimal. Ref the Lib Dems in the UK or even the Maori Party in NZ – both likely to disappear at the next election due to their support for parties (and power) against the wishes of the majority of those who gave them electoral success in the first place.

2. While the Labour and the Greens are reasonably close from a philosophical perspective, the only way the Greens can grow their vote is predominantly at Labour’s expense. To have any chance of forming a government post election, Labour, however, has to win voters from National. A Wgtn Green insider once told me that he believed that at least 80% of their voters would support Labour if the Green party did not exist. The likelihood of National supporters switching allegiance to the Greens is remote, so the Greens must target the Labour vote in order to increase their parliamentary presence. Labour will need to fight for each and every vote: this includes against the Greens as well as the Nats. While I don’t expect head-on attacks, I don’t expect any quarter to be given either.

3. There are elements of the Green party that turn off an important sector of would-be Labour voters that Labour needs in order to win the election. Russell Norman’s earlier expressions of interest in the finance portfolio, even though righty dismissed by Labour, has still created the perception that the Green’s may have an important role to play in the economic agenda of any Labour-led government. The simple truth is that this concerns a number of voters. The reality is that even though some of the Green policies are aligned to Labours (e.g. CGT) a number are not, and it has always been the major party those economic manifesto has dominated the political agenda. Does anyone really believe that Revenue Minister Peter Dunne under both Cullen and English had any say in the major tax decisions of either government?

All that aside, I believe that one of the biggest losers in 2013 was Russell Norman. When Shearer was the Labour leader, the media often sought Norman’s opinion as an opposition voice due to Shearer’s inability to clearly articulate a position and his team’s consistent failure to respond to media requests in a timely manner. Now that Cunliffe is leader, and is very articulate with an extremely competent press secretary who understands the game, we once again have a true ‘leader of the Opposition’ and Norman is relegated to fighting for media scraps like any other leader of a minor party.

The Green party received 11.1% at the last election. History will show this is the high-water mark for them. I expect them to get around the 6.7% they polled in 2008; or even close to the 5.3% they got in 2005.

With Cunliffe firing, the Labour caucus united and the growing perception that Key is only there for his rich mates, the battle for 2014 is between a Labour-led opposition and a National-Conservative coalition.

]]>https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2014/01/10/its-not-what-you-say-but-what-they-hear/feed/112Why the provinces matterhttps://thedailyblog.co.nz/2013/12/19/why-the-provinces-matter/
https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2013/12/19/why-the-provinces-matter/#commentsWed, 18 Dec 2013 19:19:52 +0000http://thedailyblog.co.nz/?p=38084During the last election, according to Jim Anderton, Labour’s strategists decided that they needed to concentrate on turning out the Auckland, Pasifika and Maori vote in order to beat the Key government. Jim spoke to Goff and convinced him that Labour had to include the provinces in that mix.

In 1999 Labour held 14 of the 28 provincial seats, National held 12 and the Greens and NZ First one each. In 2002 Labour held 16 to National’s 11 and NZ First one. By 2008, Labour had lost all but Palmerston North and in 2011 Damien O’Conner had managed to win back West Coast.

So what went wrong in seats like New Plymouth (1999 Labour majority 15,092), Napier (1999 majority 11,863), Invercargill (1999 majority 7,990), Tukituki (1999 majority 8,646) and many others? Sure, there were boundary changes, but you can’t blame that on the provincial massacre Labour suffered.

What happened is that National took the provinces seriously and implemented a strategy that saw a number of good candidates work extremely hard with huge support from the centre. This, mixed with Labour’s complacency, saw many so-called safe seats fall.

While we all know that its ‘about the party vote’, what a number of those who don’t live in the provinces fail to understand is that an effective local MP who is seen out and about representing the party in a high profile way has the ability to maximise the party vote in a way that a candidate who arrives three months before the election simply can’t.

In Auckland if you hold your breath at midnight and drive really fast, you can cross 10 electorate s before you start turning blue. No matter who holds a particular electorate, chances are either a Labour and/or National MP will turn up to represent their party at an important occasion.

In the provinces, there is only one show in town and that is the local MP. And in conservative provincial NZ name recognition is very important. In Napier, for example, during the local body campaign, the highest polling candidate didn’t even put up a billboard, but was top of the pile due to the fact he is a long serving councilor with fantastic name recognition.

Of course turning out the Auckland vote is vital if a party wants to win an election, however, so is turning out the provincial vote. Campaigning is different, issue advocacy is different as are the issues themselves. It is almost impossible not to run a two-tick campaign because there is no other game in town.

Provincial electorates also represent heartland New Zealand. No matter what anyone in Auckland says, two-thirds of NZ’s economy is still based around primary industries. If any party only holds seats in Akld, Wgtn, Chch and Dunedin, then they don’t have a particularly wide mandate to govern because they haven’t got MPs in caucus putting forward the views of the vast majority of geographic NZ.

The fact that David Cunliffe has taken the Regional Development portfolio, and Shane Jones the Economic Development portfolio shows that Labour takes the issue of provincial health and well-being very seriously.

I am beginning to see National make the same mistakes that Labour made in 2002 – 2005. A creeping complacency that a number of excellent Labour candidates will be in a good position to take advantage of in 2014. Whanganui, Otaki and Wairarapa are three seats that stand out, and I firmly believe my own Napier electorate will return to Labour next year as well.

In fact, I predict that in 2017, Labour will, once again, hold more provincial seats than National.

Only when Labour starts winning back provincial NZ, however, will it truly be able to maximise its party vote.

Jacaranda House is a purpose built mental health out-patient clinic on Kennedy Road in Napier that has been operating successfully for around 20 years. In 2015 The Hawke’s Bay District Health Board will close this essential facility and sell the property.

This decision isn’t because Jacaranda House is failing, or that demand has dropped to such an extent that it’s no longer justifiable (if only…). In fact, quite the opposite; the clinic sees approximately 60 to 70 patients per week. The patients on its books are in the ‘severe to enduring’ category. The ‘mild to moderate’ tend to go to their GP and get a referral to counselling services, so the people who will be affected are the most vulnerable in our community.

The DHB has given the usual excuse around rationalisation of services: that new facilities in Hastings will provide a better quality, and more intensive rehabilittion. Amazingly, the DHB’s offer of help to the Napier patients who may not have access to transport is to provide a free bus to Hastings. As if these patients are like kids going on an outing or a sports team that needs a lift to the park.

The head of the DHB’s Mental Health services, surely must know that many of these Napier people struggle to make the trip to Jacaranda House as it is, let alone travel on a bus to Hastings. To suggest this is any kind of ‘solution’ is absurd.

So why the move from ‘community-based’ mental health care, back to the institutional model of the past that I thought medical practitioners were so against? Money. Pure and simple. The DHB is spending millions refurbishing its on-site mental health unit at Hawke’s Bay hospital in Hastings. In fact the head of the Mental Health Services proudly stated that “The development of the mental health unit is the most significant spend in health care in Hawke’s Bay since the amalgamation of the Napier and Hastings Hospitals in 1999.”

Anyone who has ever been to the Hawke’s Bay Hospital’s mental health unit will know that this redevelopment is years overdue, however, why should this affect community-based services? Quite simply, the DHB has forgotten that community care must actually be about communities. To crow about how much money the DHB is spending on new mental health unit misses the point. This isn’t some destination where “if you build it they will come”, rather mental health provision must be a combination of community delivery and hospital services; not one or the other.

Any society should be judged by how it treats its most vulnerable, and Jacaranda House is one of the important threads that holds Napier’s community together. If one starts pulling these threads, civilised society slowly begins to unravel. This is what is happening in Napier, and across many provincial towns and cities.

Jacaranda House is a special and successful place staffed by wonderful, caring people. If it closes, many of those who require the services offered by Jacaranda House will have nowhere to go. When mental health patients do not receive the level of care they require, then the patients, their families, and our communities all suffer.

We are told these decisions are to create financial efficiencies but at some point it has to stop being about money and start being about what is right for our people and their communities. We simply can’t keep hollowing out services and cutting costs and expect to maintain a civilized society where those who need help have access to the appropriate care and facilities.

So, this begs the question; how much are communities worth? The DHB believes it can shut down a fantastic facility that provides a very important service for up to 70 Napier people a week and the cost is acceptable. Well, it’s not acceptable. Our city’s health and wellbeing is worth a hell of a lot more than that. Amalgamation of mental health services in Hastings is not the answer to better community outcomes.

I have observed the politics of the Conservative party from afar ever since I got to know the Conservative spokesman for Napier during the 2011 election. He was a nice, personable chap who hadn’t a hope in hell of getting into parliament but he gave it everything on the stump during candidate debates. He wasn’t a particularly persuasive speaker, nor did his arguments make that much sense, but he was passionate and I respected that. Unfortunately, I can’t say the same for Colin Craig.

Anyone who states that a major policy priority when in government, and a potential coalition deal breaker, is the repeal of a piece of legislation that eliminated a travesty from the law books, surely cannot be taken seriously.

At a time when much debate has raged back and forth about male attitudes towards women, a politician who strongly advocates for the legal physical abuse of children needs to be banished to the pages of political history once and for all.

I found it fascinating that Mr Craig was ranting about greater parental control over children as a fix to the sort of behavior perpetrated by the roast busters, and yet in the same breath he was advocating for the ability of parents to beat the living crap out of their kids… Did he not see the hypocrisy of his words?

Let’s recap what the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Act 2007 actually did. Before the law change (which passed 113 votes to 7) there was a legal defense around the definition of the use of ‘reasonable force’ when beating a child. It should be noted that there is no such defense for an assault on an adult – or an animal for that matter; but there was for a child. The way that juries interpreted this test was inconsistent, and I remember there was outrage when a jury acquitted a woman who beat her dyslexic child with a horse whip. So the law change removed the ‘reasonable force’ test.

What was also interesting is that there was clause in the amendment that stated

“To avoid doubt, it is affirmed that the Police have the discretion not to prosecute complaints against a parent of a child or person in the place of a parent of a child in relation to an offence involving the use of force against a child, where the offence is considered to be so inconsequential that there is no public interest in proceeding with a prosecution.”

What this means is that the police are not going to prosecute a parent or caregiver unless there is a very good chance of gaining a conviction for physical abuse. With this in mind, remember when Bob McCoskrie and Family First gathered signatures for a referendum that posed the totally disingenuous question…

“Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?”

This is not what this law did and nor does it read as such, which really did make me wonder if Bob even read the new law…. In any prosecution (and I believe there have been only three contested trials…) the judge has the discretion to take into account any mitigating factors that s/he may consider to be material.

So, Colin Craig wants to return the country to a place where people can literally beat their kids, but it’s okay if they use ‘reasonable force’. What type of message does that send to our young people? Certainly not the type they need to learn in this day and age. If Key does end up doing a deal with the Conservatives, then he does so at his own risk; however, not even John Key believes that a return to the past is wise. Lets just hope that Colin’s 10 minutes will soon be over and election 2014 will see him disappear from the political landscape forever.

The Labour party conference promises to be a defining one for a number of reasons:

1. Labour has a new leader who, for the first time ever, was elected by active party members who attend conferences. David Cunliffe was a very popular choice and so will be well supported.

2. David has to give a speech that people are still talking about in January: not necessarily the content (though important) but the delivery. The man is charismatic and is a very good communicator and when he speaks with passion and conviction he is exceptional, so expect an exceptional speech that will set a new benchmark for a leader’s keynote address at major political conferences in a way David Cameron’s did in the UK.

3. There is a genuine feeling that Labour really can take the treasury benches in 2014. The level of energy and engagement from key participants will determine the mood of optimism at the conference and beyond. It is always been my experience that people draw energy from those around them – both negative and positive, and so I am expecting a very energized conference full of the belief that 2014 will be Labour’s time

4. There are a few controversial remits that will be debated on the conference floor. The PR and political management around whatever decision is reached by the party members must be handled with a high degree of competency and will be the first real test of Cunliffe’s new team. Any negative spin or half-stories must be closed down immediately so Labour’s solutions to the issues that really matter to good hard working Kiwi families are the default headlines.

5. The leadership contest has enabled and empowered members like never before. It will be very interesting to see what members do, and how they exercise, this new found power. Enabled people are engaged people, and engaged people work hard to win elections. Expect robust debate on the conference floor.

6. Discipline.! Labour will not win if there is the perception of division. No political party ever does. I expect a very high level of discipline and a 100% on-message response by every delegate. Anything else will be counter productive and will be over reported and draw oxygen from all the good stuff going on.

7. The mood of the caucus will be most interesting. Again, I am expecting that all will have taken the oath that they support the Labour leader 100% and willingly show this whenever possible at conference.

8. The performance of David Parker. I consider David to be one of the real thinkers and intellectuals of the party; and a man with a huge social conscience but an in-depth understanding of the macro-economic philosophy. Now as deputy leader he takes on added responsibility. He has the potential to be better than Michael Cullen and so his first major performance as deputy leader will be most interesting. I expect him to prove to a wider audience just how good he is.

This time in 3 days we will know how thinks have gone – and this conference will set the tone for the march into election 2014. I fully expect this to be the first step in a victory march that will end in the occupation of the beehive.

Yesterday my wife gave birth to a wonderful little daughter, and its events like these that certainly puts things into perspective. It’s also at times like this when we do take a good hard look at life and reassess what’s important.

I’m involved in politics because I believe that I have the ability to make a difference. I know, that sounds idealistic at best and glib at worst, but its true. I said in my maiden speech that if I can leave the world a slightly better place than it was when I entered, then it will have all been worth it. Perhaps another politician’s cliché, but again, its what I believe.

But what really drives me is the quest to solve the issues of inequality that bedevil our society. If I go a little further, I have a deep loathing for the situation that finds 270,000 NZ children living in poverty.

I recently read Mike Moore’s 1996 book ‘Children of the Poor: How poverty could destroy New Zealand’s future’. In it Mike decries the fact that 20,000 NZ children go to school hungry: well, this figure is up to around 80,000 now. That’s a disgrace in a country as wealthy as ours.

There are many who agreed with Key when he said that people go to food banks for lifestyle reasons, but anyone who has seen poverty at work knows this is total bullshit. We are a country full of proud people and the majority of families I used to refer to the Foodbank hated the fact they had to ask for charity; many were working to support growing children but simply couldn’t afford to make ends meet on the minimum wage.

Poverty wears people down; it snatches dreams and steals hope to the point where once-proud people simply give up. They forget they once had aspirations for their children and dreams of a better life, and go from day to day hand to mouth.

But it doesn’t have to be this way. And when I hear David Cunliffe talk about reducing poverty and inequality it makes me want to go even harder to ensure we end up with a Labour government. When I read people saying that Labour is swinging to the left because David Cunliffe wants to create social equity, realign the tax system so everyone pays their fair share, tackle child poverty head on, and drive regional economic development, I say ‘thank goodness’.

To be fair though, these aren’t the policies of the left or the right, but rather the politics of pragmatism and 21st century reality. No matter how wealthy the top 10% in society are, no one does well when the level of inequality is so high that huge numbers in our communities miss out on the necessities of life. Many from all sides of the political and socio-economic spectrum understand this; and its why Cunliffe’s message is resonating.

David Parker knows that we need to create a business environment that stimulates the type of economic growth that allows employment opportunities for all. This govt has proven that the ‘hands off – leave it to the market’ style of fiscal manageemnt simply doesn’t work anymore. The government does have a role to play in driving economic outcomes; and even more so in an economy the size of NZ’s.

Tackling poverty and inequality head on is difficult, but vital. It takes vision, hard work and a willingness to challenge the status quo. A Labour government under David Cunliffe will, I believe, pick up this challenge.

This is why I am involved in politics. Because I believe there is a better way, and because I would like my daughter (and her sister and two brothers) to grow up in a society that cares about all participants; not only those with the good fortune to be born into opportunity.

When David Shearer was elected to the Labour leadership, I had every faith in his ability to be Prime Minister. Those who have read some of what I have written also know that I believe it didn’t have to end the way it did for David, but the strategy employed in his office was not the right one: it didn’t play to his considerable strengths and served to highlight his not inconsiderable weaknesses.

David Cunliffe is a completely different leader. His weaknesses are mainly perceived and his strengths are considerable. He is a fantastic communicator, a good orator, an experienced operator with great political instincts and all backed up by a formidable intellect. His strengths are the very weaknesses that ended up defining Shearer’s leadership.

So what strategy should David Cunliffe as leader employ? A different one than that recommended for Shearer. I always thought that Shearer should be out and about, meeting and greeting people, kissing babies, talking in pubs, and entertaining in clubs, giving town hall speeches in Hokitika, staffroom talks in Masterton, and wooing grey power members from Cape Reinga to Bluff. His talent was his natural ability to easily relate in a very relaxed way to the vast majority of good hard-working, but aspirational, Kiwi battlers who deserted Labour in 2011. He needed to be kept away from the media except when necessary with stories that differentiated him from Key, improved his reputation and provided quality positive coverage. Shearer should have empowered senior caucus spokespeople to go hard with stories in their portfolios.

While of course Cunliffe must get out and about, his primary focus must be concentrated on inflicting maximum damage to the National govt by taking down weak ministers in the House and getting to Key through the incompetence of those around him. Shearer was simply too inexperienced to lead the attack where it mattered, whereas this is one of Cunliffe’s strengths.

This now must be the sole purpose of question time: disciplined, targeted, relentless – and obvious – campaigns against weak ministers. I would signal out Guy, Tremain, Foss and Adams and go after them day after day and week after week. I wouldn’t worry about Collins, Joyce, English or Ryall unless there is an important political point that needs to be made, but Labour or Cunliffe will never get past the defenses of these competent and experienced ministers. The other four, however, are vulnerable.

Guy is way out of his depth with Primary Industries; Mallard completely exposed Tremain by absolutely screwing him over in question time on a relatively simple issue a month or so ago; Foss is hanging on to his ministerial warrant by the skin of his teeth and this thread can be easily severed; Adams is extremely vulnerable and way out of her depth on the ITC sector issues (which is one of Cunliffe’s areas of expertise).

Imagine Key arriving back from staying with the Queen to find either Adams’ confidence shattered, and/or Tremain on the ropes and ready to give up and/or Foss’ alleged inability to enter Japan exposed and/or Nathan Guy on the rocks – all four hating question time. It is conceivable – and doable. Joyce and Brownlee will be tearing what’s left of their hair out as they are forced to jump to the defense of their colleagues time and time again through the point-of-order process, and Collins will have had no opportunity to play to her growing faction.

Then your question to Key is always asking him to justify and support the incompetent performance of his Ministers: “Does the PM have confidence in all his ministers?”. Take down the weak one by one and the strength of the whole is exposed. The thing about Guy, Tremain, Foss and to a lesser extent, Adams, is they are all independently wealthy, so they don’t need the grief that would rain down on them day after day. Their growing fear of ritual humiliation in front of their peers, the media and the Nation would soon result in decisions not to seek reelection in 2014.

The last point I would make is keep away from Key. Talk about ‘this National Government’; not John Key. Key is still popular and so why try and be mean to everyone’s ‘favourite uncle’? Just leave him alone and make him as irrelevant as possible, except when asking him to justify his support for incompetent performance. This is how Key damaged Clark and how Cunliffe will damage Key.

Shearer was initially positioned as the anti-politician, whereas Cunliffe has to be defined as the master politician. He can do it; he certainly has the ability; he just now needs to execute the strategy. Let’s hope he does for then the real fun would begin.

There was another very significant piece of political maneuvering the week that Shearer resigned that unfortunately went largely unnoticed: for the first time since Key has been the leader of the National party, one of his MPs came out and publicly criticized him. And not just any MP but Judith Collins, the person tipped to take over from Key when he steps down, came out swinging over the Henry inquiry, which was initiated by Key himself.

This is significant for two reasons:

1. Collins must believe that she has the numbers and support in caucus to go after Key. Collins is not stupid and so this move was designed to test the strength of her support versus that of the PM on an important issue of principle, as well as show her supporters that she will not shy away from a fight (my understanding is that she was only articulating what a significant number of National MPs were saying behind closed doors). To me this is the first signal that there must now be some manoeuvring behind the scenes in the National caucus and that all is not happy in camp Key;

and 2. Key knows very well that disunity and ill-discipline is the one thing that the public will not tolerate. It is no co-incidence that all three Labour contenders for the leadership talk strongly about unifying the caucus. The reason for this strong rhetoric is that all have been privy to Labour polling which makes it very clear that nothing turns voters off more than public bickering within a political party.

Key won in 2008 because every one of his MPs remained totally focused on taking down Helen; and the only way to do this was exercise the same level of discipline that Helen herself was famous for. We will never know exactly how many bodies deputy PM Cullen and Chief of Staff Simpson buried before the stench became public, but what we do know is that any whiff of dissent or ill-discipline was dealt with swiftly.

Only through unity can a political party ever hope to win (or retain) the treasury benches. In fact Labour’s caucus has been put on very public notice by Jones, Cunliffe and Robertson, that if they simply can’t accept the result (and there are always losers in any leadership contest) then go, and go quietly and with dignity. For some this will be hard. If Cunliffe wins, it will be interesting to see how the very staunch few of the ABC club react, because the ability of the new leader to unify the caucus – and deal quickly and efficiently with those who may be tempted to show disunity – will be crucial if Labour is to have any chance of winning in 12 months time.

One of the main reasons why Shearer’s tenure ended so badly was because the public did not have confidence that the leader was in control of his caucus. Politically, this will always be fatal as it allows the politics of identity and factionalism to rise to the surface and undermine any pretence of unity and solidarity; which are so important to any political party’s chances of success.

It would have been interesting to be a fly on the wall in the National party caucus room the week after Collin’s criticisms, but I suspect Key knows that he has also been put on notice: don’t f*** with very senior colleagues who have ambitions or else you may well find yourself met by a delegation at the airport telling you that you no longer have the numbers. Et tu Judith and Bill and Steven and Anne and…

In this week’s Listener article by Ruth Laugesen (Regaining the love Labour’s lost), there is a bold pull-out line that states: “MPs such as Phil Twyford are seen with some suspicion within Labour as having selfishly built their own vote rather than that of the party”. The line is pulled from a paragraph that reads: “After [the 2011] result there was much muttering within Labour over the failure to win strong party votes in seats such as Auckland’s Te Atatu, where Phil Twyford won a personal vote of almost 16,000 but a Labour party vote of just 12,000. Rather than being seen as a laudable demonstration of a candidate’s crossover appeal to National voters, MPs such as these are seen with some suspicion within Labour as having selfishly built their own vote rather than that of the party”.

So who are the “MPs such as these..”?

As a reference, in the electorate in question – Phil Twyford’s Te Atatu – Labour received 39% of the party vote and Phil received 52% of the candidate vote (against a gaffe-prone Tau Henare; who is hardly another John Key.!) for a majority of 4,000 votes.

David Shearer’s Mt Albert (not that far from Te Atatu): Labour received 37% of the party vote and David got 57% of the candidate vote for a majority of over 10,000 votes.

Grant Robertson’s Wellington Central: Labour received 26% of the party vote and Grant 48% of the candidate vote for a majority of over 6,000 votes.

Phil Goff’s Mt Roskill (not that far from Te Atatu either): labour received 32% of the party vote and Phil received 56% of the candidate vote for majority of over 7,000 votes,

Annette King’s Rongotai: Labour got 34% of the party vote and Annette received just under 50% of the candidate vote for a majority of 9,000 votes.

In other West Auckland seats, Labour ended up with 37% of the party vote in Waitakere, and 37% of the Labour party vote in New Lynn.

Shearer, Robertson, Goff and King are hardly ‘selfish’ and yet they all have a larger candidate majority than Phil. In fact, in terms of party vote percentage, Phil Twyford did better than all four in the former and current leadership teams, and better than the other two West Auckland electorates.

I have known Phil ever since he came back to NZ from representing Oxfam in New York and became involved in the Labour party. In fact, we were both in the Epsom LEC. I can testify that Phil is an extremely hard worker and a very effective campaigner. One only had to drive through Te Atatu during the last election to realise that Phil had more hoarding sites (party vote and two-tick) than anyone else in Auckland.

The provider of the line in the Listener article also fails to understand MMP: one of the great things about MMP is that it allows constituents to vote for whom they consider to be a very effective MP, despite what that person’s political affiliation’s may be. And it always goes in swings and round-abouts. In Rongotai, for example, Nat Front bencher Finlayson (by all accounts a very able front bench cabinet minister) received less candidate votes than the Nats received party votes. I wonder if the Nat’s are sitting around saying “Finlayson, you are obviously not very popular so we need to replace you with someone who is going to get as many candidate votes as party votes?” Of course not. MMP allows good local MPs like Shearer, Robertson, Goff, King and Twyford to be rewarded (or not punished) when the party isn’t firing.

I would also contend that in this day and age it is pretty much impossible to run a pure ‘candidate-centred’ campaign. Every Labour electorate MP is in parliament because they are aligned with Labour. The party is much larger than any candidate.

Su’a William Sio’s victory in Mangere in the 2008 general election proves the strength of the Labour brand over that of the individual. In 2005 Phillip Field won Mangere as a Labour MP with a majority of 16,000 (the largest majority of any MP in parliament at the time). When Field stood as an independent in 2008, Labour’s William Sio won with a majority of over 7,000.

There is no doubt that an effective candidate improves the party vote: it’s the reason why the Green’s refuse to stand candidates aside in general seats, when to do so could well mean that Labour wins the seat; because they know that without a candidate their party vote drops.

Phil Twyford is an example of an exceptional candidate and it is the reason why Labour’s party vote was 39% and not 32%. Phil will be a fantastic cabinet minister one day, and I have no doubt that as Labour’s party vote in Te Atatu waxes and wanes depending on the party’s fortunes, Phil’s personal majority will continue to increase in line with his work ethic and sense of community responsibility.

Personally, I don’t know who views Phil ‘with some suspicion’ because if every Labour-held electorate had received 39% of the party vote, Labour would probably be in government.

Jacaranda House is a purpose built mental health out-patient clinic on Kennedy Road in Napier that has been operating successfully for around 20 years. Last month the Hawkes Bay District Health Board (HBDHB) announced that in 2015 they are going to close Jacaranda House and sell the property.

This decision isn’t because Jacaranda House is failing, or that demand has dropped to such an extent that it no longer justifiable (if only…), in fact, quite to opposite. The clinic sees approximately 60 to 70 patients per week. The patients on its books are in the ‘severe to enduring’ category. The ‘mild to moderate’ tend to go to their GP and get a referral to counselling services, so we are talking about the most vulnerable in our community.

The DHB has given the usual excuse around rationalisation of services, new facilities in Hastings will provide a better quality, more intensive service etc. But what the DHB is going to do to help those patients who may not have their own transport is provide a free bus from Napier to Hastings. As if these patients are like kids going on an outings or a sports team that needs a lift to the park. Hmmm.

Many of these Napier people struggle to make the trip to Jacaranda House as it is, let alone hop on a bus to Hastings, and so to suggest that this is a ‘solution’ is absurd.

So why the move from ‘community-based’ mental health care, back to the institutional model of the past that I thought medical practitioners were so against? Money. Pure and simple. The HBDHB is spending millions refurbishing it’s on-site mental health unit at Hawkes Bay hospital in Hastings. God nows, this is way overdue, however, why should this effect community-based services? Because, in my view, they have, quite simply, forgotten that community care must actually be about communities. To crow on about how much money they are spending on their new mental health unit misses the point: this isn’t some destination where you ‘built it and they will come’, but rather mental health provision must be a combination of community delivery and hospital services; not one or the other.

I have always believed that society is judged by how it treats its most vulnerable, and Jacaranda House is one of the important threads that holds Napier’s community together. If one starts pulling these threads, civilised society slowly begins to unravel. This is what is happening in Napier; and across many provincial towns and cities.

We will make a bit of noise about this in the hope that the DHB comes to its senses and allows those who make Jacaranda House such a special and successful place, to continue doing the Lord’s work, otherwise many of those who require the special services offered by those who work at Jacaranda House will have no where to go, and we all know what happens when mental health patients do not receive the level of care they require.

So, this begs the question; how much are communities worth? The DHB believes they can shut down a facility that sees 60 to 70 patients a week and the cost is acceptable. I don’t. My community is worth a hell of a lot more than that.!

From the moment we are conceived to the time we leave, we face risk. As Peter Bernstein put it in his remarkable book on the history of risk: “The capacity to manage risk, and with it the appetite to take risk and make forward-looking choices, are key elements of the energy that drives the economic system forward”.

To better understand risk, let’s get some perspective; in the last five years, around 300 New Zealanders have died at work; an estimated 1,000 Kiwis die every year as a result of work-related illnesses; between 1994 and 2008 over 25,000 people died of some sort of injury; since records began in 1921, around 36,000 people have died in car crashes, and the Christchurch earthquake was the first time in 80 years (and the second time in 100 years) that people have died as a result of building collapse caused by an earthquake.

You get the point: life is full of risk and attempts to mitigate risk are based on pragmatic solutions designed to minimize harm rather than eliminate it. If elimination were the goal we would build 5ft high crash barriers along both sides and down the center of every road in the country. Obviously not desirable, practical or affordable.

As a result of the recent quake in Wellington, and on top of the Canterbury tragedies, we are beginning to gain an understanding of the bureaucratic response to manage a risk that history shows is actually minimal: the level of compliance required of commercial buildings in meeting the provisions in the Building Act as set out in the Building Code regarding earthquake preparedness.

All new buildings must comply 100% with the building code. The building code came into force as a consequence of the 1931 Napier earthquake, and has been updated fairly regularly as new building materials and practices have developed.

Of course many buildings in our cities were built before the current iteration of the building code, and so are not even close to 100% compliant with the current Building Act; (however, it is important to note that they must be compliant with the code of the day in which they were built). This does not mean they are unsafe or pose any risk to life or limb in the event of an earthquake. Wellington’s earthquake was a classic example: a decent shake by all measures, but only three people suffered minor injuries. Sure, the structural integrity of a number of buildings may well have been compromised, however, the lack of any building collapse goes to show that the city has been built reasonably robustly.

If, however, the rumours about the soon-to-be required level of engineering compliance are true, many owners will simply abandon or demolish their buildings rather than spend what may well amount to a prohibitive cost on strengthening.

In cities like Napier and Hastings, where many of the buildings date from 1931-34, the cost of attaining a 21st century level of compliance will be prohibitively expensive compared to the commercial value of the building, and yet the vast majority of these buildings are safe should an earthquake strike.

In fact, the reaction at the time of the Hawkes Bay rebuild was to significantly over-engineer to ensure that such a human tragedy never occurred again if another large earthquake hit. Evidence of the structural integrity of these buildings is found every time any remedial work is done: these buildings are built like the proverbial, and yet they don’t come close to meeting today’s building code.

This is the dilemma, and where risk analysis and market economics comes into play. Everyone agrees that there does need to be some sort of standard that buildings must adhere to, because of course; we don’t want unsafe buildings in our cities, but just what constitutes ‘unsafe’?

The CTV and the PGG buildings that collapsed killing a majority of the 185 people who lost their lives in Christchurch’s February earthquake, had already survived two major earthquakes and five aftershocks measuring greater than 5 on the Richter scale. Both were relatively modern buildings, and the Canterbury Earthquake Royal Commission proved that the engineering specifications for the CTV building were drawn up by someone who was not competent and had lied about his qualifications.! So perhaps the engineering processes and methodology used in assessing structural integrity after a major earthquake needs to be overhauled (and how the buildings in Wellington are assessed post earthquake will be the test to what we have learned from the Chch experience).

I am hopeful that common sense and pragmatism will win the day. That government will provide legislative clarity where confusion currently exists, but that an overreaction won’t force responsible building owners into a situation where the cost of compliance is prohibitive and unnecessary in terms of protecting lives during an earthquake.

Remember those stats in the second paragraph: in the last five years, around 300 New Zealanders have died at work; an estimated 1,000 Kiwis die every year as a result of work-related illnesses; between 1994 and 2008 over 25,000 people died of some sort of injury; since records began in 1921, around 36,000 people have died in car crashes… How about the government puts the thought time, energy and resources into areas where a real difference can be made in terms of saving lives and improving society.

So lets all take a deep breath and advocate for a pragmatic and sensible approach to building safety that ensures risk is assessed in a way that allows sensible choices to be made. There are many risks to doing business in this day and age; history shows that being killed in an earthquake is not one of them.

The issue of child poverty, and the fight against what I consider to be our Nation’s shame, must be number one on the ‘issues that matter’. So when Napier’s National MP Chris Tremain recently published a little ad in the local community paper that outlined how the National government is fighting child poverty by helping vulnerable children, I thought is was about time to once again look at the facts.

Tremain was crowing about the govt funding the following:

$9.5m over five years ($1.9m/ann) to help the ‘Kick Start Breakfast programme

$1.5m over three years ($0.5m/ann) to help KidsCan charity.

This equates to:

$2.4m per year on fighting child poverty.

270,000 NZ children living in poverty according to The Children’s Commissioner,

…therefore…

$8.89 per ann per child in poverty is the government’s contribution to fight child poverty.

Considering the economic cost of child poverty is estimated to be between $6,000,000,000 to $8,000,000,000 per year, the National government’s claims to be helping vulnerable children seems a little of the mark.

The Children’s Commissioners definition of child poverty is:

‘Children living in poverty are those who experience deprivation of the material resources and income that is required for them to develop and thrive, leaving such children unable to enjoy their rights, achieve their full potential ad participate as equal members of New Zealand society”

So around 25% of NZ children live in households where the family cannot afford the necessities of life because the household income is not sufficient to live on. This manifests itself in hungry, cold, kids living in overcrowded, unhealthy conditions.

Child poverty rates differ significantly by ethnicity, with rates for Maori and Pacifica double that for European children, however, around 50% of children living in poverty are European children, so this is not just a Maori or Pacifica issue.

But the great thing is that the Children’s Commissioner believes that child poverty can be significantly reduced. The bad thing is that it ‘requires political vision, courage and determination’: something that this government has shown very little of so far when dealing with this issue.

The Children’s Commissioner’s report titled ‘Solutions to Child Poverty in New Zealand – Evidence in Action’ outlined 78 recommendations to alleviate child poverty. This report should be the manifesto for all parties in their efforts to alleviate child poverty from this country; wonderful for many, but not quite so for far too many.

So has Mr Tremain and the rest of his National government really got anything to crow about? No. Quite simply, the government is not doing nearly enough to address this most pressing of issues, and looking after one’s citizens is the core responsibility of every government. After all, society is judged by how it treats its most vulnerable.

For more on the Children’s Commissioner’s report on Child Poverty visit the Commission’s website on http://www.occ.org.nz/. The report is on the middle of the front page.

Last week the National Government signed a dodgy deal with Sky City; the GCSB Bill went through the select committee process and some incredibly influential men and women expressed grave concerns about the impact on the rights of all NZers; the families of the Pike River Mine victims were told there was no money in the bank for compensation; the Maori party seems to be in its death throes – and Labour released to members a constitutional remit on gender equity to go to its Nov National Conference…

The NZ Council of the NZ Labour Party is the party’s governance body. While it has various powers, duties and responsibilities, it does not have the mandate to alter the party’s constitution. Only the members and affiliated unions have this power – and each member of the NZ Council has the same voting rights as a member from Wairoa.

Under the party’s rules, any proposed change to the constitution has to go to all the members four months before the annual conference. This allows due process to be undertaken and all members from every branch to be fully informed, the remit to be debated and everyone to arrive at the conference informed.

So the gender equity proposals are simply this: a remit that has not been passed and must go through a rather exhaustive process before its provisions are adopted and implemented. It should also be noted that a recommendation from the NZ Council certainly doesn’t assure the safe passage of any remit.

Like many members, I received the remit on Wednesday night. Apparently Whale Oil received the remit sometime on Thursday. This is fine: its what we expect and that is the way the world now works. I’m certainly not an apologist for Whale Oil at all, and have felt the sharp end of his keyboard a number of times, but we know how he operates so nothing should come as a surprise. According to the Dom, because Whale Oil had ‘leaked’ this proposed remit, Labour was ‘forced’ to bring forward a scheduled press conference.

Labour did nothing wrong in putting out this remit to all its members; in fact, constitutionally, it was required to. Actually, the remit is fine in the sense that Labour conferences are often about robust debate and passionate speeches on many different issues. There are always winners and losers because, surprise surprise, we don’t’ all agree on everything.

The thing that astounded me, however, was the lack of a clear communications plan around this remit. Surely someone around a big table full of people considering the proposal must have piped up and said “okay, this is going to be rather controversial, so what are our lines when the press gets hold of this?”

Technically, the President has no staff, and the office of the General Secretary operates on a skeleton crew, but a call from a NZ Council rep to someone in the Leaders office who perhaps could have offered some advice on how to handle this might have been appropriate. A simple line like “this is simply a proposed remit that has a long way to go before it becomes part of the plan, and will be hotly debated at our November conference”. End.

But no. Once again, Labour is fighting an unnecessary fire on an issue very few Kiwis care about, instead of concentrating on the issues that are really important to the people who will end up electing the next government. And David Shearer has been forced into a corner on an issue that he shouldn’t have to be anywhere near. In fact, he should be protected from this type of controversy. This is the result of poor political management.

My advice to Labour is somehow find the money for a PR and comms professional and a political strategist who work as a team with the mandate to operate across the party and the caucus. They should be attending NZ Council meetings and caucus gatherings with a responsibility to assess potential risk and then come up with the political, PR and comms strategies to mitigate the type of debacle that is becoming far too common during this term.

In my view, the Sky City deal is an absolute abuse of executive power; the Pike River mine debacle is a disgrace that the government actually has to front up over; the death of the Maori party presents a real opportunity for Labour to once again reconnect with an important historical support base; and the proposed GCSB legislation has the potential to erode the rights of good hard working kiwis who have done nothing wrong and never ever will.

So Labour, it really is time to concentrate on the issues that are important; and please start developing the type of professional comms and PR strategies that are vital to 21st century political success.

As for the proposed remit; well, I am more interested in discussing strategies that will create jobs, put more money in the pockets of good hard working NZ families; lift the 270,000 NZ children out of poverty and make the tax system fairer for all. End of story.!

]]>https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2013/07/08/the-issues-that-matter/feed/27Why I support Euthanasiahttps://thedailyblog.co.nz/2013/06/27/why-i-support-euthanasia/
https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2013/06/27/why-i-support-euthanasia/#commentsWed, 26 Jun 2013 18:01:25 +0000http://thedailyblog.co.nz/?p=20019My father died last week. He was a man of huge intellect with a staunch socialist philosophy that he put to great use as a provincial lawyer, school board member, NGO trustee, sports club committee member, community volunteer etcetera. He didn’t make nearly as much money as one with a formidable reputation in the legal profession should have, as he was constantly helping people for free, and he had to retire his partnership early due to a triple heart bi-pass in 1977. It was, however, one of the largest funerals seen in Napier for a while as many came to pay their respects to a man of great integrity.

Even though I often sought his advice and council on a wide range of matters and, of course, loved him dearly, for me the great relief is that he died relatively quickly and in very little pain: and with all his faculties. There would have been no greater tragedy than for him to be dribbling into his dinner because his brain had exited a body that had lived on – and been kept alive – way past its use-by date.

We all either have elderly relatives, or know friends who have, who are afflicted with the curse of dementia, and we all have stories about people we know who have suffered terribly slow and painful deaths. To me, dementia is dreadful, and the way medical science has worked to extend lives that nature (not accident or infection) has determined should end, comes with its own ethical and moral dilemma.

I don’t buy the argument that people who have lost their marbles are happy. No one likes to think that this is the way they will end their days; incontinent, not knowing friends or family. Like many I know, I have verbal contracts with a number of good mates who will end my life if my wits desert me or my pain becomes unbearable and I am not in a position to do something about it. In fact, the Minister who presided at my father’s funeral said that he has a similar pact with his wife. I asked about the consequences, and he said that he would happily go to jail rather than see his wife of 50 years suffer the humiliation of a slow painful death without dignity.

And this is the dilemma. I have no doubt that medical professionals working in the palliative care sector do make decisions “in the best interests of the patient’s comfort”, but what about those dying without dignity at home, or in a hospital that doesn’t have a palliative care ward? As our population ages, I believe that we will see many more husbands, wives and friends fulfilling the type of contract I have with my mates. We will see a much greater incidence of mercy killings and suicides as the elderly determine how they will end their days – and with whom.

I remember five years ago reading about an eighty year-old eminent English Professor who euthanized his terminally ill wife and then ended his own life. He left a note saying that he had achieved everything that he had always wanted to during his life; that he loved his wife of over 50 years more than anything in the world, and that he couldn’t bear to see her in such pain and did not want to live without her. I remember thinking ‘I get that’.

All this tosses up huge ethical, moral, religious, legislative and legal questions as we continue to deal with the consequences of a demographic slide toward an aged population that medical science is determined to keep alive for longer and longer; despite the wishes of the patient and their family.

How will the courts deal with an 85 year old man who has, in effect, murdered his terminally ill wife? How will the catholic church deal with the funeral of the woman who has euthanized her husband and then taken her own life? How will parliament deal with a growing constituency that demands the right, under certain circumstances, to determine their own fate? And how will those who are young, fit and healthy for a brief moment in time, judge their parents and grandparents who have made a decision in love, but seen as selfish by those who do not have the maturity or empathy to understand? Personally, I don’t have the answers. But they are questions to issues that we are going to be forced to confront before too long.

]]>https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2013/06/27/why-i-support-euthanasia/feed/9Tax Reform: It’s Time To Investigate A Land Taxhttps://thedailyblog.co.nz/2013/06/13/tax-reform/
https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2013/06/13/tax-reform/#commentsThu, 13 Jun 2013 04:50:32 +0000http://thedailyblog.co.nz/?p=17803A full five years down the track, I am convinced that this government’s lack of a serious, well thought out plan on how to grow the economy at a time when a plan is most needed, is how history will judge Key’s tenure. This government came into power with a real mandate for change and, with the global financial crisis, a perfect excuse to implement wide-ranging policies that could transform the country in a way that only Labour governments have done in the past.

While the fifth Labour government addressed a lot of the social inequities created by the Richardson legacy, lets be honest, they were helped by a very strong global and local economy. And despite a strong economy, the lack of private investment in the productive sector during the good times may have had great short term labour market outcomes (evidenced by record low unemployment), but it has had disastrous consequences for our economic productivity.

The high cost of money in this country (highest interest rates on business lending in the OECD three years ago – assume not much has changed) has meant that the private sector has tended to delay or ignore much needed investment in capital that would increase productivity and instead employ cheap labour.

I remember when the F&P factory in Mosgiel closed in 2008 with the loss of over 400 jobs, my first reaction was what a blow to that town; the second reaction was ‘why is there a production factory employing 400 people in NZ?’ In a modern thriving economy, such a factory would employ 100 skilled workers producing three times the output; the factory would still be open and workers still working. Instead of investing in plant to improve productivity, F&P had simply employed people until it became more economic to close the factory and export the work to Mexico.

This is a problem that bedevils our economy, and it is certainly not helped by our globally high interest rates. Many of our global competitors can borrow money for around 2%, whereas ours is closer to 8% for a business loan; and often the banks require personal guarantees, thus negating a number of the advantages of a limited liability company and removing incentive to take business risk. People talk about increasing interest rates to stifle the housing market: well, the impact on the productive sector would be a whole lot worse [my next post will be about an innovative way to address the issue around high interest rates on business loans]. Interest rates are not the way to slow the housing market: taxes are.

While I consider Sir Michael Cullen a visionary (paying off debt and leaving the country in an incredibly strong position at the onset of the GFC, starting the super fund, kiwisaver, etc etc), I cannot understand why he didn’t go further and reform the tax system. In fact, for me, it remains the one point where Labour failed to take advantage of their own mandate for change upon reelection in 2002.

As Labour’s revenue spokesman last term (and as someone who disagrees strongly with the contention that, for all his faults, at least Dunne was a competent Revenue Minister) , I undertook a wide ranging study of a number of jurisdictions and policies and wrote three substantial discussion documents containing ideas designed to optimize government revenue while targeting economic growth. I was looking through one of these papers last night and, apart from digging deeper in an attempt to further justify positions, I would not change one recommendation.

First of all, we need a capital gains tax. This is a no-brainer. Only Switzerland and Turkey in the OECD don’t have a CGT. Not many people know that Phil Goff actually approached Key directly and said that Labour would be prepared to work in a bi-partisan way in order to develop a CGT free from political interference that is always associated with the introduction of a new tax. Key, of course, said no.

Fully implemented, such a tax would raise around $4.5b per annun. But one cannot simply introduce such a tax in isolation. The introduction of a CGT would necessitate a full review of the entire tax system. I agree with Gareth Morgan when he says we overtax labour and undertax capital. While I don’t agree with his ‘big kahuna’ solution, I do think we need to start with the realization that our 20th century tax regime is not suited to a 21st century economy.

Key’s tax reform has been disastrous in the sense that he has taken money out of the economy by increasing GST and reducing the top tax rate. The wealthy don’t spend in times of economic downturn; they either save or retire debt: the poorest are the ones that spend (simply out of necessity) so a pragmatic solution is to give money to those who absolutely need it, as opposed to reducing top tax rates for those most advantaged. The consequence was further economic depression at a time when stimulus was required. Unfortunately, the political decision won out over the pragmatic.

I think that if we seriously view investment in housing as an economic / structural problem, then we should at least investigate a land tax. This is an idea recommended by Key’s own tax working group, but rejected by English. Evidence and modeling shows that such a tax would have the effect of depressing the housing market slightly, but it is a very easy tax to collect and administer, and it does only target those who own land.

As mentioned, however, no government could implement such massive tax changes without taking a good hard look at all taxes. I am personally in favour of a tax free bracket; but not only $5k: go as far as Australia: they have an $18,200 tax free threshold; from $18,2001 to $37,000 the rate climbs to 19%, from $37,001 to $80,000, the rate is 32.5%, $80k to $180k the tax is 37% and over $180k it rises to 45%.

So a land tax and a CGT would raise around $10b in the fullness of time, which could then be used to overhaul the personal tax regime and give money back to everyone through a decent tax free threshold. Result is more money circulating in the economy, reduced reliance on income and corporate tax (the highest reliance on these two in the OECD), spreading the tax burden across all sectors, and, most importantly, equity across investment classes.

There were a number of other reforms I recommended, but that is a conversation for another day.

]]>https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2013/06/13/tax-reform/feed/19Water Storage – A Provincial and Nationwide Issuehttps://thedailyblog.co.nz/2013/05/30/water-storage/
https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2013/05/30/water-storage/#commentsWed, 29 May 2013 20:44:15 +0000http://thedailyblog.co.nz/?p=15473I live in the provinces (Napier) and am Chair of Labour’s Provincial and Rural sector committee, so I am going to post about a local HB issue that has implications for a number of provincial and rural cities and communities.

Over the past couple of weeks, I have been labeled in the media as anti-growth because I apparently don’t or won’t support water storage. Nothing could be further from the truth. So to be clear: in principle, I have no opposition to water storage (irrigation). However, when it comes to Hawke’s Bay’s Ruataniwha Water Storage project, I do have a number of specific concerns. If these concerns are addressed, then I will have sufficient confidence to be able to throw my full support behind the dam. Let me outline the issues:

1. Financial viability. When spending ratepayers and / or taxpayers money, it is important to ensure that any infrastructure investment is financially viable over the medium-to-long term. While there is often a ‘public good’ factor built into public sector investment, there still a very clear expectation that rate payers and taxpayers will end up with value for money. In the dam’s case, this means there needs to be sufficient water up-take to ensure that both the public and private investors earn an economic return on their capital. I understand that only around 13% of landowners (or approximately 20 out of 150) have formally lodged an expression-of-interest in participating in the irrigation scheme. I recall being informed there needed to be at least 40% (or 60 out of the 150 landowners) of uptake for the scheme to be financially sustainable. It may be that given time, more farmers will sign up, but I cannot help but be concerned that so few of the 150 landowners in the affected catchment have expressed interest; especially considering the amount of targeted consultation undertaken by the HBRC.

2. Environmental sustainability. I don’t think anyone would disagree that any project undertaken in this day-and-age must be environmentally sustainable. Clean and green is our Nation’s global brand and sustainably managing our natural resources for future generations should not only be a statutory requirement but a moral duty.

Environmental experts have informed me that the proposed increase in nitrate levels caused by the forecast change in land use is significant to the point where it will adversely affect the Tukituki’s fragile ecosystem. Once nitrate levels increase to certain levels, aquatic life is replaced with weed that, once established, is nearly impossible to eradicate. In fact the same problem in Lake Taupo has resulted in a forced reduction in cattle stocking levels in an attempt to restore the health of the Lake.

3. Protection of the region’s strategic assets. I am unsure why the dam will be held in the same Regional Asset Holding Company that other strategic assets, like the Napier Port, also reside. Most investors know that strategic assets are held in separate companies to protect them from the potential failure of an unrelated investment, unless they are used for either; a) leveraging purposes, which in this case, would mean the port is being used to guarantee the dam; or b) tax mitigation (and if this is the case, I hope the HBRC has very good advice).

I would be a lot happier if the dam was in its own holding company at complete arms length from any of the region’s other strategic assets.

4. Economic development. I see economic development as the greatest issue facing provincial NZ going forward.

If the forecast increase in produce and productivity resulting from the dam’s presence is going to result in the construction of down-stream manufacturing plants that permanently employ 1,800 people earning a decent wage who wouldn’t be otherwise in work; if it is going to necessitate the creation of 20 new fulltime roading jobs, 80 maintenance roles and 300 new service industry positions receiving a living wage, that otherwise wouldn’t exist… then, great. If EIT is going to have to expand their educational offerings in order to train Bay men and women who can then take advantage of the increased opportunities created…then, fantastic! Two thousand Bay workers paying taxes, participating in their regional and local economies and helping create sustainable wealth and economic growth is worthwhile.

If, however, a spend of $280m will only create minimum wage on-farm jobs filled by imported Pilipino workers and Island labourers, harvesting produce that exits the region to other cities, then I personally don’t think this is a good use of $280m of economic development money.

I don’t think the four criteria I have outlined are unreasonable at all. In fact, the same criteria should be applied to any project undertaken with taxpayer and ratepayer money. I understand the value in inter-generational regional economic development, and no one wants to see the Bay and our cities prosper and thrive more than me, but I also understand the risk in massive capital development failure, and that is not a cost we want future generations to bear if we get it wrong.

There is also one other philosophical concern I have: I really don’t think that those who are really struggling to put food on the table in the cities should pay for the largest transfer of wealth from the city to the provinces in HB’s history.

The result of this dam is that the capital value of the affected properties is going to significantly increase (and landowners do not pay any tax on that capital gain once it is realized). If this dam is so good, then surely landowners can fund its development by borrowing against the increase in capital value and forecast increases in production. I do get the argument that without local and central govt investment this simply wouldn’t happen, and that the economic benefits for the whole region may well be huge, but I still have a feeling of disquiet; especially since there is no CGT. It feels like corporate welfare that the Nats are so good at dishing out.

A massive project on this scale needs to be expertly managed. Raising concerns as I have does not make me “anti-growth”. On the contrary, I believe ignoring these concerns would be irresponsible. All I ask for is the information needed to have confidence in this project – and until that’s provided I will continue to express my doubts.

]]>https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2013/05/30/water-storage/feed/7Mainstream Media Drops Ball While Kids Await A Political Solutionhttps://thedailyblog.co.nz/2013/05/16/mainstream-media-drops-ball-while-kids-await-a-political-solution/
https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2013/05/16/mainstream-media-drops-ball-while-kids-await-a-political-solution/#commentsWed, 15 May 2013 18:30:03 +0000http://thedailyblog.co.nz/?p=12935By the time you read this we will know if Hone’s ‘Feed the Children’ Bill is heading to select committee or has been run over by the weight of government inaction backed by the servitude of Peter ‘I’m-about-families-as-long-as-they-are-white-middle-class-heterosexual’ Dunne.

It doesn’t matter that the Children’s Commissioner has a fantastic report outlining 76 recommendations to improve the lot of our poorest children (written by a very wide apolitical cross-section of NZ society), or that there is a fiscal cost to feeding children, or that Hone has mismanaged the PR around his Bill; what matters is that there are still 270,000 New Zealand children living in poverty. I have said it before and I will continue to say it; this is our Nation’s shame and, for me, it is the no 1 issue in a long list of issues that really matter.

Those over 40 will remember that when we were growing up Australia was known as ‘The Lucky Country’ and we called ourselves ‘God’s own’. I haven’t heard NZ referred to this for years; the reason is that for a growing number of citizens it isn’t. Our global marketing strategy is based around images of us being a clean, green wonderland, 100% pure and all that crap, whereas the stark reality is that many of our children don’t even have decent drinking water.

And what really pisses me off about the whole Aaron Gilmore saga is the media have been fixated on this clown when they have missed a very serious opportunity to hold our government (and our selves) to account. The only serious commentator who has actually gone hard in exposing the dreadful underbelly of NZ society is John Campbell, and I applaud his exposes on hungry children and government lies.

Brian Edwards wrote a rather interesting piece on his blog where he had a real go at the media over Gilmore, and said that their behavior is a reason why he will never call himself a journalist.

I am unsure whether the media’s preoccupation with such trivia is because that’s what they perceive we want, or because their egos are becoming larger than many of the politicians they attempt to hold to account. So they now have a scalp. And the first reading of a Bill that has the potential to alleviate a barrier to learning for many of our poorest goes largely unreported upon.

No matter what the result of Hone’s Bill, we cannot let this issue slip below the water and disappear out of the consciousness of middle NZ. When Once Were Warriors was first released I asked a good friend what he thought of the film. He said that he was aware that the sort of violence portrayed in the movie existed, but didn’t need it shoved in his face.

It appeared the film had offended his sense of middle class security; of who we are as a nation, and it made him feel uncomfortable, so easier just to sweep it under the mat and go on sipping latte’s in a comfortable café while avoiding the unpleasantries of an alternative reality.

Well, the time is now here when we do actually need to ‘shove’ such realities in the faces of all Kiwis in a last-ditch attempt to educate the nation as to the stark reality of many who live in the country we all call home.

The activism around gay marriage was huge – and hugely successful. Lets hope these same people now turn their attention towards solving another basic human right: that of all children to grow up with a full belly and a caring society. Time will tell.

]]>https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2013/05/16/mainstream-media-drops-ball-while-kids-await-a-political-solution/feed/2Consensus Politics and When Does Tax Avoidance Become Evasion?https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2013/05/02/consensus-politics-and-when-does-tax-avoidance-become-evasion/
https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2013/05/02/consensus-politics-and-when-does-tax-avoidance-become-evasion/#commentsWed, 01 May 2013 21:04:06 +0000http://thedailyblog.co.nz/?p=10789

Beehive Removals. Image courtesy of Scoop Media, by Lyndon Hood.

Consensus ≠ compromise – A friend of mine complained to me a while ago that he had paid $2m in tax the previous year and asked how this was fair. Knowing roughly his net worth, I replied that he was significantly privileged to be one of the very few who had the ability and the means to choose where they live in the world. He could move to any tax haven anywhere around the globe and have a very good life, but for whatever reason, he had chosen to live in New Zealand. After the forth beer he threatened to move to Dubai, but that was two years ago and his kids are still enjoying a first class NZ state education.

In New Zealand, we have very few guiding philosophies that create societal expectations around how we live and operate. One fundamental expectation, however, is that you pay your fair share; no more, no less. How successful you are will determine the exact amount of that share, but whatever the sum, a ‘fair share’ is not supposed to be onerous, or unduly penalize the successful or dissuade the wealthy. And I don’t believe it does. But what really pisses me off is when I see some of our most successful go to great (legal) lengths to avoid not only not paying their fair share, but not paying anything at all.! At least my grumpy friend actually pays tax.

As Labour’s Revenue Spokesman last term, I did a lot of research and work around the Capital Gains Tax initiative. The result was a paper justifying the introduction of such a tax. The interesting thing is that I actually started with the premise that we didn’t need a CGT, but simply needed to tighten up current tax law. I soon realized my initial premise was flawed and that a CGT is vital to any efficient and fair tax regime.

Phil Goff realised this too. I have been told by a very reliable source that Bill English privately believes we need a CGT, and that a number of backbench Nat MPs were advised to keep quiet on this policy in case they wanted to introduce a CGT themselves in a post-Key future.

So Phil did what was right – and very courageous: he approached John Key and said that Labour would promise to work with his government in a bipartisan way in developing a CGT. Key said no. In my view, one of the greatest missed opportunities of Key’s lackluster tenure.

So what’s the point of this story? Well, I believe that consensus politics on key issues, where ideological barriers shouldn’t prevent dialogue, is the way of the future. Occasionally, this does happen on big ticket items, but not often enough. And I also believe there are many more such issues that a bipartisan approach should be taken than are immediately obvious. There is no ideology around a CGT; just politics. All-but-one tax expert, the vast majority of economists and all economic commentators actually supported Labour’s policy; and these aren’t gentle men and women who have the date for the Labour conference inked in their diaries.!

Labels such as ‘left’ and ‘right’ are of no consequence. I have been called ‘left’ by those on the right and ‘right’ by those on the left, and yet there is no sharp picket fence I sit on when it comes to developing and promoting policies that will drive sustainable economic growth, create jobs, lift children out of poverty or put more money in the back pockets of good hard working kiwis. Of course there are massive differences between Labour and this government, and I am not suggesting for a moment, Labour try and become ‘National lite’, but there are people in places of influence who have ideas that need to see the light of day. And heaven help me – they do not wear red underwear to bed, but they are Kiwis who simply want what’s best for our wonderful, but fading, country.

My brief experience is that they will talk to anyone who will listen. And if an MP isn‘t smart enough to distill good advice, ideas and concepts from bad, then perhaps a more appropriate job awaits them outside of parliament.

The bottom line is that I am an idealist, a social democrat, a Kiwi, but also an arch pragmatist. Personally, I don’t care who you voted for in 2002; if you can show me an idea that fits my personal philosophy around equality of opportunity, I am more than happy to work it up into a policy that will either drive sustainable economic growth, lift children out of poverty, create jobs and/or put more money into the back pockets of hard working Kiwis, because to me, making a real difference is what politics is about.

Editor’s Note: This is Stuart Nash’s first article with The Daily Blog.

]]>https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2013/05/02/consensus-politics-and-when-does-tax-avoidance-become-evasion/feed/11About Stuart Nashhttps://thedailyblog.co.nz/2013/05/01/about-stuart-nash/
Tue, 30 Apr 2013 21:06:06 +0000http://thedailyblog.co.nz/?p=10537Stuart Nash has had a number of careers in business, management, politics and forestry.

Currently living in Napier (where his family have resided for nearly 150 years), Stuart was a Labour list MP from 2008 – 2011 and unsuccessfully stood for Labour in Napier in the 2011 general election. Stuart wiped nearly 6,000 votes off the sitting National MP’s majority, but unfortunately, the Nat had a majority of over 9,000 and so a great result was not good enough.

Stuart is currently working as a business consultant and is still active in the Labour party politics as the chair of Labour’s Rural and Regional Sector Committee. After rejecting strong calls for him to stand for the Napier mayoralty, he plans to seek Labour’s nomination in Napier for the 2014 general election.

Stuart has masters degrees in Management and Forestry Science, as well as an undergrad degree in history and a couple of postgrad diplomas that lie gathering intellectual dust somewhere in a forgotten closet. And no, he is not related to the cricketer, even though he has met him a couple of times.

Stuart is married to Sarah and has three children and another due in late September.